- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:07:22 +0100
- To: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
- CC: public-owl-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <490F059A.3030904@w3.org>
Christine, I have very small comments only, all editorial - 2.2.2: although the formal spec makes it clear that the, say, MinCardinality construct in the functional spec encompasses both the new usage and the OWL 1 restrictions (ClassExpression being optional) it may be good to emphasize that for OWL 1 readers. This is all the more important because in the RDF mapping there is actually a fork, and the cardinality with an explicit class is mapped on a different term than the one without... Is there an example in the Use Cases that could be added that does _not_ use a class? That could be added, for example. - 2.2.5: I wonder whether it is possible to give a short (though not necessarily complete) description of the global restrictions on how to use property chains. The current text refers to the syntax document which is, well, not really easy to read and certainly on the level of the readers of this document.... - 2.2.6: AFAIK, and the functional syntax seems to say that, a key can be both a datatype and an object property. However, the text suggests otherwise: "However, keys, aka inverse functional datatype properties" which might lead to the user that only datatype properties can be used in this position. I also wonder whether it is possible to find an example where more than one properties appear in the HasKey clause. The fact that one can define an instance through the combination of properties is very powerful and would deserve more emphasis there... - 2.3.1: I think it is worth emphasizing that we also have owl:real as a special datatype, as well as rdf:text. The current text suggests that we use 'most XML Schema datatypes' which suggests that we use a subset of those. Which is true but we also have some others... - 2.3.2: just flagging this; afaik, we do not have a decision on the inclusion of n-ary datatypes yet... - 2.5.1: it might be good to have examples for the (new) possibilities of defining ranges and domains for annotations and defining sub properties for annotations. I am not sure any of the use cases have that, though... - It may be worth adding the top and bottom object properties to features. Boris had some great example for the type of expression one might have with those around. I hope this helps! Thanks a lot Ivan Christine Golbreich wrote: > A revised version of the Requirement is now available at > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/OWL2NewFeatures. > > It is based on the discussions & strawpolls at the F2F and review comments. > The objective of this updated version "New Features & Rationale", is > to focus on an overview of the new features that have been added to > OWL 2 and of their rationale. Find below the main changes: > > - renamed "Requirements" into "New Features & Rationale" > - moved the core section "Features" up, to be the first, as unanimously agreed > - rolled sections 4 (req) into 5 (features) > - moved the use cases to an appendix, as wished by the majority (strawpoll) > - refered to the UCs from the section "features" > - cut section 2 (users and applications), as proposed mainly by Bijan > - completed and updated some features > - All the UCs in the Appendix follow a common pattern as asked > Elis'as review earlier: Overview, Features, Example, Literature. > - separated References and UCs Biblio > > There might still be some polishing to do (add links, etc. ) but it > gives a good idea of the new proposed version. > It would be helpful now to check whether all content is up-to-date > w.r.t last decisions in particular at the F2F or wherther the document > should be fixed in some places. > > All your comments and feedback are welcome. > > Christine > > 2008/10/29 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>: >> I did some analysis of the resolutions at the last F2F and tried to >> determine which documents (out of Syntax, Semantics, RDF Semantics, >> Profiles, Conformantce, Mapping, Manchester, Primer). I did try fairly >> hard to find all the changes needed, but these are *not* guaranteed to >> be comprehensive. >> >> Some of the changes have already been performed; these are marked with >> DONE. >> >> peter >> >> >> >> Changes to Documents from F2F Resolutions >> >> >> ISSUE 114 Punning Syntax >> - no change to punning Mapping >> - annotations by name XML >> Manchester DONE >> Primer? >> >> Definitive specification Syntax - editorial >> >> ISSUE 134 metamodel <no change> (so far) DONE >> >> ISSUE 142 Profiles Theorem 1 Profiles DONE >> >> ISSUE 145 MIME Types Syntax >> - for FS, MS, XML Manchester DONE >> XML Serialization >> >> ISSUE 150 Exchange Syntax Conformance >> - RDF/XML is normative exchange syntax >> - other syntaxes by prior arrangement >> >> ISSUE 127 (not resolved) >> ISSUE 87 (not resolved) >> >> ISSUE 97 GRDDL <no change> (so far) >> >> ISSUE 138 dateTime Syntax DONE >> - use new XSD datatype Profiles DONE >> - note at risk RDF Semantics >> >> ISSUE 148 topDataProperty Syntax >> - restrict its use Profiles?? >> Primer? >> >> ISSUE 147 datatype v and ^ Syntax >> - add them Semantics >> Mapping >> XML >> Primer? >> Manchester? >> >> ISSUE 144 base triple Mapping >> - add them and fix RDF Sem RDF Semantics >> >> ISSUE 149 OWL 2 RL Profiles >> - add missing rules >> - add note on optimization >> - add SOME in certain contexts >> >> ISSUE 137 imports Mapping >> - include from RDF non-ont Syntax (editorial) ???? >> >> New annotation axioms Syntax >> - AD, AR, SAP Mapping >> XML >> Manchester >> Primer? >> >> Comments Syntax >> Manchester DONE >> Primer?? >> >> > > > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Monday, 3 November 2008 14:07:30 UTC